memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Real-world information in background sections
I've noticed an increasing amount of real-world information appearing in background sections of articles. I recently removed a section from Thompson submachine gun which went into extensive detail about the manufacturing history of the weapon and its magazine designs (see Talk:Thompson submachine gun#Removed). However, I've seen other examples in Recent Changes in the past few days - such as Dodge WC63#Background information, which discusses the history of the vehicle and speculates as to why the Germans may have been using it; and Ford Model 51#Background information, which covers similar matters but also the roles of the relevant companies in the Second World War. I noticed today that the origin of the has been added to Old Britain, which finally prompted me to raise this. I feel that this information is not suitable for inclusion here on Memory Alpha; but, rather than having the same conversation on every article I thought it was an issue on, I thought a forum topic would be more appropriate. In my view, most of this is the sort of the information that we provide links to Wikipedia for - it is not background information on the subject of the article in the sense of providing information on their appearance in Star Trek, and indeed potentially obscures such material. But, there is also a fair bit of tangential content, and particularly speculation and original research, which I feel goes beyond that sort of information and I am not comfortable with. Others' views are appreciated - is this sort of background information suitable for inclusion? If so, is the level of detail appropriate for inclusion? I accept that it is entirely possible I am in the minority. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:53, December 2, 2015 (UTC) :Having become a "major perpetrator" I was requested by Michael to give my views, so here goes: Star Trek is one of those science fiction shows that, unlike Battlestar Galactica for example, revels in making historical references both in dialog as well as onscreen. In my view, when doing so, they then open themselves for closer scrutiny in the way they use what are then essentially bonafide Trek production assets, and in essence not any different from, for example studio models, Depicting Klingons or sets. For these it is accepted that explanatory BGinfo is included, so why not for historical production assets (especially when used in onscreen interaction), provided it is done so to provide context with what is actually seen onscreen, which I sincerely believe to be the case, and if it is contained in background sections, which I was under the impression that that was what they were intended for. Following Michael's reasoning, articles such as Schutzstaffel uniforms and insignia, USS Ranger (CV-61) or all outside-''Trek'' career paths of cast and staff for that matter, then have no place on MA either (all that is researchable on Wikipedia, are they not?). But like Michael, I can accept that it is entirely possible I am in the minority..--Sennim (talk) 17:29, December 2, 2015 (UTC) Firstly, don't use quotes around "major perpetrator" as if it was something I said to you - I never used any such words. Second, I don't see the comparisons you are trying to make: Schutzstaffel uniforms and insignia is an in-universe article, describing what is actually seen on screen, the Ranger page is a real-world page describing the filming location and the circumstances of the filming itself, and the careers of Star Trek production staff (again, fully real-world) are entirely relevant to an encyclopaedia about them - these are not equivalent to what is being discussed. And please don't suggest that I am somehow arguing to have those pages removed - that completely misrepresents my argument, and misses the point of it. This is specifically about real-world information in the background sections of in-universe articles. Perhaps I should have made the last part of that clearer, but I thought the article examples were sufficient. The relevant policy here is , specifically point 8 in the first list. To take the example of Ford Model 51 - references to Henry Ford's anti-semitism and the Ford Company's activities during WWII, or a discussion of the history of the Opel company, don't even tell me anything about the vehicle, let alone its appearance in Star Trek. Point 5 in the second list also applies - a detailed analysis (I presume by yourself) of the nature of a piece of footage and the vehicles that may potentially be in it is speculation and original research. Furthermore, when the analysis indicates that the footage apparently does not include the vehicle which is the article subject, it has even less reason for being in the article. This will be my final contribution to Memory Alpha, at least for a while. I have lost any enthusiasm I had for contributing, particularly in the last month; therefore, I am done for now. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:13, December 3, 2015 (UTC) ::To add to what was stated above, a good rule of thumb (not an absolute, mind you) is that if the background section is (significantly) longer than the article itself, there's probably something "wrong" with the background info. In the case of the Ford Model 51 background section, while well-written and interesting (at least to me), it *does* constitute OR and really isn't directly relevant to the subject of the article. And speculation should be left to the reader. In many of the articles on MA we could speculate endlessly about why something occurred, or what happened after some event, or whatever, but we don't... or at least, we shouldn't. Speculation is something we're constantly editing out of articles. -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:31, December 3, 2015 (UTC)